The NGO Coalition for Biosafety and Food Safety (representing six NGOs
and supported by another 72) lost its court case on September 27, 2001
against the Indonesian government and PT Monagro Kimia over the planting
of Bt cotton in South Sulawesi. The coalition is taking the case to a higher
court.

The government will extend the permit to PT Monagro Kimia to continue
planting Bt cotton in South Sulawesi next year when the current permit
expires. At the beginning of September the Agriculture Minister declared
Bt cotton would be planted on a larger scale, and in two more provinces
- East and Central Java.

The Bt cotton has succumbed to drought and pest infestations. Farmers
have complained about the claims of superior agronomic advantage and performance
of the GE cotton crop. On September 13 farmers burnt down their plantations
destroying at least three hectares of Bt cotton.

Background

PT Monagro Kimia, a Monsanto subsidiary, started variety trials in 1996
to find a cotton variety for cultivation in Indonesia, specifically in
South Sulawesi. In 1998, as part of the regulatory process for the commercialisation
of GE crops, glasshouse trials and limited field trials were conducted.
In 1999, Bt cotton was approved by the Indonesian government and declared
as environmentally safe to be planted in Indonesia.(1) However, PT Monagro
Kimia had been distributing Bt cottonseeds since 1998. The company has
been conducting field trials since 1998 (2). This is reportedly the first
GMO 'field trial' in Indonesia. The amount of land planted to Bt cotton
in 2000 was at least 500 hectares.

On February 7, 2001 the Ministry of Agriculture issued Decree No. 107/2001
allowing the limited release of the cottonseed variety Bt DP 5690B as quality
seed under the trade name NuCOTN 35B (Bollgard) on plantations in seven
regencies (districts) in South Sulawesi (Takalar, Gowa, Bantaeng, Bulukumba,
Bone, Soppeng and Wajo).

In 2001 the total area planted to Bt cotton was approximately 4,400
hectares (involving approximately 6,500 farmers) (3).

The use of Bt cotton in South Sulawesi is also being promoted by local
government officials. As reported by NGOs, the Bupati (regent or district
head) of Bulukumba said he would "instruct" all his colleagues down to
village heads on the benefits of Bt cotton for farmers.(4)

The NGO Coalition for Biosafety and Food Safety (representing six NGOs
and supported by another 72)(5) took legal action against the degree. The
coalition claims the degree was issued hastily, without consideration of
the potential implications of using transgenic products; it violated Indonesia's
environmental law (23/1997) because no environmental impact assessment
was conducted; and the public's right to information and to be involved
in decision-making was not upheld. In addition the decree allows for "limited"
sales of the cotton yet no restriction on the cultivatable area was outlined.
The coalition asserts the Ministry of Agriculture was merely seeking to
legitimize past violations by PT Monagro Kimia.(6)

On September 27 the court case was lost by the NGO coalition. The government
will extend the permit to PT Monagro Kimia to continue planting Bt cotton
in South Sulawesi next year when the current permit expires(7). At the
beginning of September the Agriculture Minister declared Bt cotton would
be planted on a larger scale, and in two more provinces - East and Central
Java (8).

The NGO coalition is taking the case to a higher court (the previous
hearing was heard at the district court).

The Bt cotton has succumbed to drought and pest infestations(9). Many
farmers have complained about the claims of superior agronomic advantage
and performance of the GE cotton crop. Even the government revealed that
more than 70 per cent of all the Bt crop locations didn't produce the promised
expected yields(10).

On September 13 farmers in the village of Kajang in the Bulukumba regency,
about 230 km south of Makassar burnt down their plantations in a show of
discontent towards PT Monagro Kimia. At least three hectares were destroyed.(11)

The farmers also demanded an explanation from the South Sulawesi governor
as to why he allowed South Sulawesi to become the testing ground for the
controversial technology, which they claim turned out to be a failure(12).

In March 2001 a total of 40 tonnes of Bt cottonseed was brought into
Indonesia from South Africa. Bt cottonseed has also been brought in from
Australia(13).

On April 5 2001 UNISON, an international public sector trade union supported
by 1.3 million members expressed their solidarity with the Indonesian Organic
Farmers Network in their opposition to the importation of the Bt cottonseed(14).

On April 17, 2001 some 500 farmers and other anti-GE advocates from
all over Indonesia rallied on the International Day of Farmer's Struggles
Against GMOs, in front of Monsanto and the Ministry of Agriculture in Jakarta.
Farmers called for the destruction of the Bt cotton field trial and other
GE products in the country, no further releases of Bt cottonseeds by the
government and the eviction of Monsanto from the country.

In South Africa a petition by SAFeAGE (South African Freeze Alliance
on Genetic Engineering), signed by 110 local and international groups and
individuals, says the trade in GMOs remains largely unregulated in the
developing world - something that should have been addressed by the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety.(15)

AHMEDABAD: The scandalous sale and cultivation of bt gene variety cotton
in Gujarat has much more to it then mere clandestinely growing a seed variety
still awaiting legal sanctions. Greenpeace International has expressed
serious concern about the hundreds of acres of illegally planted Bt cotton
in Gujarat. "Entire episode was ludicrous revealing the inability of the
Indian regulatory system to control the release of genetically modified
organisms into the environment," it stated. Greenpeace genetic engineering
campaigner Michelle Chawla feared that '...no proper environmental assessment
of the situation was being undertaken'. It was claimed that no assessment,
or even investigation of the environmental damage, was made by the team
that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had sent. The team
comprised the director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR),
Nagpur and a scientist from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), and
only verified if the Bt cotton was sown. Quoting different studies, the
environmental watchdog claimed that the third generation of the pest is
the most problematic. In southern China farmers have been growing this
variety. Now they have to spray pesticide to control third and fourth generation
H. armigera, because of the drop in expression levels. The Bollgard varieties
being proposed for India are not high-dose, and Indian data shows potential
for resistance to develop in as little as 7-8 generations. Some voluntary
organisations have made an appeal to the GEAC chairperson A M Gokhale to
adopt transparent measures, involving environmental groups, farmers organisations
and independent scientists to participate in the regulatory process. They
also demanded that laboratory studies should also be conducted to ascertain
after how many generations can the Helicoverpa produce high level of Bt
tolerance and various reports regarding trials conducted till now should
be made public. Greenpeace's scientific advisor Doreen Stabinsky who made
a scientific presentation before the GEAC about bt gene cotton said "Data
from the US, Australia, China and India confirm that the gene Cry1Ac is
not uniformly effective against different populations of Helicoverma armigera,
nor are there high-dose events for H. armigera, needed to kill 99 per cent
of the population."

It is also feared that G. arboreum, an important relative of cultivated
cotton in India, could be affected by gene flow, though the possibility
was low. Greenpeace pointed out that some of the large scale Bt cotton
field trials, specifically in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, were carried
out much later than the sowing season. This was contrary to standard agricultural
practice, and the Bt plants did not experience the normal pest load. This
cotton variety Bt Bollgard cotton was planned to be introduced in India
by Maharashtra based seeds giant Mahyco in collaboration with Monsanto
for commercial production across up to potentially 8.5 million hectares.

Factfile on bt gene cotton

An insecticidal toxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a naturally
occurring soil bacterium and used since early 1960s as a biological pesticide,
is cloned and inserted into a crop plant. The plant then produces its own
toxin in most, if not all, parts of the plant. The larva when it eats the
plant, dies as its digestive system is severely affected. Cotton, corn,
and potato engineered with such genes were grown commercially for the first
time in 1996.

International seeds giant Monsanto's 'Bollgard' Bt-gene was introduced
by Mahyco (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company) into the Indian cotton hybrids.

***

3. 'Maharashtra should tread cautiously on Bt cotton'

The Times of India, October 31, 2001

The recent discovery of the illegal cultivation of genetically modified
(GM) Bt cotton over 5,000 acres in Gujarat has set alarm bells ringing
among environmental groups which have been waging a major battle against
GM foods and foodgrains. Pune-based Kalpavriksh, Greenpeace and Vandana
Shiva's Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology have been
warning against the introduction of the genetically engineered seeds in
Indian agriculture. They oppose it on the grounds that the full impact
of these seeds on human and animal health and the ecology are not fully
known. The genetically modified Bt cotton developed by the agritech major
Monsanto, derives its name from bacillus thuringiensis soil bacterium which
protects the cotton crop from the highly destructive bollworm pest. An
illegal variety of this crop was cultivated on 5,000 acres in Gujarat which
the government has now decided to destroy. Speaking to The Times of India,
prominent environmentalist and founder of Kalpavriksh, Ashish Kothari said
that the development in Gujarat has a serious bearing on Maharashtra which
is one of the major cotton producing states in the country. While agreeing
with the decision of the environment ministry's Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee (GEAC) to destroy the illegal cotton crop to prevent any harmful
effects on the ecology, he says the Maharashtra government must adopt a
cautionary approach. "State governments, including the one in Maharashtra,
need to ascertain whether Bt cotton or other genetically engineered crops
are being illegally cultivated by farmers. We are playing with fire without
knowing how to handle it," he said. "We still do not know what are the
long-term effects of genetically engineered crops on the ecology and on
the health of animals and humans. All we are saying is that India should
decide on this technology only after understanding the full implications
on the agricultural system," he said. The biodiversity expert rejected
the pro-Bt cotton lobby's claim that no harmful effects of this technology
had been noticed in the United States, China and some other countries where
the technology had been introduced in a big way and has consequently hugely
boosted the cotton yield.

"As against claims of phenomenal productivity, there are indications
that productivity has plateaued, apart from other negative experiences
of farmers," Mr Kothari claims.

He said that environmentalists were of the view that the government
should give greater emphasis to organic cultivation which too would ensure
greater productivity in the long run. He said that while Europe, Sri Lanka
and Thailand had banned GM foods, the Organisation of African Unity had
emphasised that the technology should be accepted only after thorough testing.
Mr Kothari said that opposing biotechnology in agriculture was becoming
increasingly difficult due to the liberalisation and globalisation policies
and due to support from the United Nations Development Project.